How the press lied about the little girl staying with Muslim foster parents. Here are the facts.

The tabloid press (and I include The Times and The Telegraph in that description) lied about the story of the little girl put into care with a Muslim family.

Here are 10 of their worst lies – along with the real facts of the case as we know them:

1) According to court documents, it was the police not the local authority (as stated by the tabloids) who decided the child should be put into foster care:

2) According to court documents, the foster family criticised by the tabloids was a temporary placement.

3) According to court documents, the child herself is from Muslim heritage and her Muslim grandmother has now been cleared by the courts to look after her. This fact is only disputed by the girl’s mother but none of this was mentioned by the tabloids as it would obviously totally destroy their narrative:

4) The temporary foster mother did not wear a veil as stated by the tabloids. She wears a hijab:

The veil in the photographs published by the Mail and other so-called ‘news’papers was photoshopped onto a stock picture of a Muslim family taking a walk in a park in Dubai:

5) According to court documents, the child’s mother has not at any time requested the foster parents be changed:

6) The press claim the foster parents do not speak English. This is not true. Tower Hamlets council have confirmed that the temporary foster parents do speak English. According to court documents, the Family Court dealing with the case has also expressed no concerns about the foster parents’ level of English. The press simply lied about that:

7) According to council foster care officials, the temporary foster parents did not ban Easter as stated by the tabloids. There is also no mention of this according to court documents by either the mother herself or the lawyers representing her. The press simply lied about that.

8) There is no evidence, apart from claims by the tabloid press, that the temporary foster parents have banned crucifixes and bacon from the home. There is also no mention of this according to court documents by either the mother herself or the lawyers representing her. The press simply lied.

9) According to court documents, it seems the child was put into temporary foster care by the police because of the mother’s alcohol and drugs problems. There was no mention of this fact by the tabloid press, presumably as it would put a question mark over the mother’s credibility and her criticism of the temporary foster parents.

10) The foster parents have been rated very highly by independent assessors, including the child’s own independent Children’s Guardian whose job is to advocate solely for the welfare of the child:

Those are the sad facts of the case. It is beyond disgusting that supposedly professional journalists would manipulate a tragic case involving a little child to further the political ends of their proprietors.

And personally my anger knows no bounds at comfortably-off journalists smearing and bullying foster parents – people who are doing a difficult job caring for children in often very tragic circumstances for very little financial reward.

The following so-called journalists are either so incompetent they got the facts wrong, or they lied. Either way, they should be sacked:

I’ve just reposted this on Labour Party Forum and got this response from Adrian Rainbow, whoever he is. Any comments?

He writes “I suggest that if you are going to re-post dishonest subterfuge like this, you might try reading to court docs’ to confirm the authors claims.”

Holy shit, how credulous are you?
1.The first point is in error and actually posts a quote countering it’s own claim, social services are part of the local authority.
The police acted under orders of social services.
2. The media never mentioned the length of the foster order either way.
3.The child is not of Muslim heritage her G’parents are not practicing and her mother identifies as Christian.
“Documents including the assessment of the maternal grandparents state that they are of a Muslim background but are non practising. The child’s mother says they are of Christian heritage”
4. That point is so desperate I’m not even going to bother.
5. “The mother raised some concerns about the appropriateness of the placement. On 27th June 2017, the court directed the Local Authority to produce a statement to address the cultural appropriateness of the foster care placement.”

All Right Wing papers.
World famous for being economical with the truth and making up their own stories.
Sadly the old “Thunderer”, The Times, that the world used to turn to for truth, is now firmly in the Murdoch camp and can no longer be trusted.
You should also mention that awful person KT**** who tweeted the story but so far i haven’t seen any correction.

I haven’t read the press reports, but I had already read the order before coming across this blog post of yours. You are wrong on one point, which you repeat. Although the police removed the child from mum, it was social services who placed her with the foster parents. (The police could also have been acting on information supplied by social services.) Apart from that one slip (repeated), well done for nailing the press lies so well.

Tut, Tut Mr Tom.
What’s this?
Trying to challenge and restrict the “Freedom of the Press”?
Isn’t it better that a few inconsequential little people have their reputations ever so slightly tarnished than any restrictions be placed on the ‘Freedom of the Press’?

Just a clarification on the first point. Although the police took the child into care via a police protection order it is social services that finds the placement for the child. Furthermore, the fact rather the child was taken into care means her mother was not able to and as we since found out has a drug and alcohol problem as the Court report shows.
In this case there was no suitable emergency placement which is reflective of the shortage of foster carers.
I suggest you send this article to our prominent right wing LBC presenter who of course had to portray rhe tabloid version of events. He too needs to be held to account.

Well done on exposing the false narratives given above. Same old culprits in the media Daily Mail, Sun, Express and yes the Times too and seemingly part of much wider and sinister actions to defame Muslims. They have no qualms about lying. I have certainly experienced this myself. Same media ran stories alleging key evidence from my ESRC Michael Young award winning dissertation on Contaminated Blood written in 2006 had been newly discovered in 2017 by a young white, non-Muslim male. (The reality was this was old evidence, ignored for years by the British government). It became quite clear that they did not wish to credit an outspoken Muslim female …rather to defame me. I wrote to them that clearly I do not fit their agenda of an “oppressed” Muslim woman and if anyone was oppressing me it was the government that covered up this scandal for decades. (An inquiry is finally on the horizon.) I sent evidence to the papers concerned to prove my research and did contact IPSO (press complaints) I was so disgusted. However an official complaint meant I would not be able to discuss certain things whilst this was under investigation and this is the time I most need to speak out with a legal case ongoing.Then I experienced false allegations made against me in another direction, though the case was closed as I fought back and there was no evidence. What is happening with some media is really dangerous and wicked.

Good work here.
No chance of them being sacked, though. Promoted, perhaps.
At Leverson (remember all that!) an Express journalist revealed he was told to make up “Muslim” stories because the readers love them so (the stories, not Muslims).
Here in west Wales I’m dreading the Daily Mail getting behind our right to black up …

As a reminder the original story came from Andrew Norfolk at The Times. All other journalists have simply repeated the story. Andrew Norfolk is an award winning journalist who helped uncover the Rotherham sex abuse scandal so he knows what he is doing.

Many of the original facts reported by The Times came it appears from contact centre report written by a Council employee which Andrew Norfolk had access to. The contact centre is where the child and birth mother meet in a controlled and supervised environment in the presence of a social worker. That social worker then wrote up what the child said so these reports came it is alleged from the child not the mother. The mother would have had no opportunity to coach the child as they can only meet in the contact centre under supervision. This is what the newspaper reported (it is not clear that all of this came from the contact centre reports though)

– Arabic routinely spoken at home of first carer which child did not understand
– a necklace containing a cross was removed by the carer and not returned
– child regularly expected to eat meals on the floor (in some societies this is normal)
– Child encouraged to learn Arabic, child told mother that she needs to ask her social worker if she can learn Arabic
– “The social services employee heard the child whispering Arabic words to her mother that she was allegedly told must be said aloud to ensure that “when you die you go to heaven”.
– Both foster families, the women concealed their faces when outside (The Times has an actual picture confirming this of one foster carer, the Mail made up their own version)
– Not allowed to eat pork (her birth mother had cooked her Carbonara with pork to take home)
– Child allegedly told ‘Christmas and Easter are stupid’
– Child allegedly told ‘Euopean women are stupid and alcoholic’
– Girl was always distressed at the end of each meeting from the contact centre reports

The birth family did not speak Arabic. The Council speak about one foster family, there were two families who fostered, it is not clear from the reports but the suggestion is that there were more issues with one family then the other one. It is still not clear which family the guardian etc saw.

As a reminder why the child went into foster care is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether or not any trauma the child would have experienced from such a disruptive change in her life was minimised through sensitive fostering or not.

Part of the problem is that a lot of the original reports are behind The Times paywall and I do not think the author of this piece has read them as they are the original reports, all other reports except for the court papers are just copying what The Times wrote.

It would also help if the author reported the fact that Tower Hamlets Childrens Services in April of this year badly failed their OFSTED inspection, the girl was fostered in March. This is what OFSTED said.

“There are widespread and serious failures in the services provided to children who need help and protection in Tower Hamlets. As a result, too many children remain in situations of actual or potential harm for too long. Insufficient scrutiny by the chief executive, the director of children’s services (DCS) and politicians has meant that they did not know about the extent of the failures to protect children until this inspection. In the majority of cases referred to them by inspectors, managers and leaders had to take immediate action to ensure that children were safe, that their needs were met and that plans to safeguard them were progressed appropriately.”

So the Council were known to have failed other children around this time. Whether that was the case with this child I do not know yet. All I can say is that the facts I do know are even more complicated then what has been reported.

But given the OFSTED failure it is reasonable to have reasonable doubt that every decision the Council made was the correct one and that their decisions should be scrutinised.

But it is important that we place the child at the heart of this before we indulge in a bit of media bashing. The press have played an important role in helping to uncover other child care scandals.

For the record I have said repeatedly that I do not have an issue with fostering across faiths and know many Muslim families who would make excellent foster parents.

But as an atheist I do not believe it is appropriate for a foster family to be teaching a five year old girl child Arabic words that must be said aloud to ensure that “when you die you go to heaven” if indeed that is what happened.

Fostering, is a multimillion pound private industry, in which venture capitalists now invest.

The number of those taken into care to feed it has jumped from an average of 600 a month in 2010 to 1600 a month..

It has been rumoured, as a result, appropriate foster carers cannot be found to meet such ever increasing demand, so large care homes and hubs are being built, one last year opened in North Yorkshire . Care Homes can command over £250,000 per year per child of public money.

Could all this have anything to do with the release of this story from the usual main news source, that is then repeated in nearly every paper practically verbatim.

Very glad to read this. For foster children school as the consistent thing in their unsettled lives is very important and so often there are not culturally matched ones available and in the school vicinity. Am glad facts have been verified as we do not need press undermining foster service where people work so hard for the children and social workers who have the children’s best interests at heart.

I have been looking at the reports, and there are several MPs involved, viewing the story with alarm. I am not sure how the newspapers got hold of the story in the first place, or why the particular MPs were involved. There was, apparently, some sort of parliamentary committee looking at issues around foster care before the election, but that stopped.

The Mail lists these MPs.

Robert Halfon

Philip Hollobone

Andrew Bridgen

Shailesh Vara

Neil Carmichael (Lost his seat in the General Election)

All are Conservatives, and Neil Carmichael is reported to have chaired the committee asking about fostering. I can understand picking him, but was he responding to the newspaper version, or did he hear about the case some other way?

If I were the Judge involved, I would be tempted to ask some very pointed questions. Contempt of Court is coming to mind,

Thank you to all who uncovered the lies – in addition at no point in any article was the child’s safety made paramount – even if everything else had been fact this should have been the priority in everyone’s eyes, but the need to hate, to spread hate, over rides this.

“For the past two months, the child’s care has been entrusted by the council to a second foster carer. Both women concealed their faces when they were with the girl in public, the first by wearing a niqab and the second with a burka”

Andrew Wood has managed to write a comment without once mentioning the original points raised in the blog.He says it is not clear which foster carer the court documents are referring to but it is .It is the current one which meant that it was the one who was caring for the child on August 29th when court order was made.This would make it the second carer.It is all so easy if you read.As to the allegations he lists them although he admits he doesn’t know where the reports came from.He misses out the one that was the one used by most of the rabid right and that was that the carers could speak any English.Obviously even Cllr Wood knew that even in Tower Hamlets it is a requirement that foster carers speak English so instead he says” Arabic routinely spoken at home of first carer which child did not understand” but so what? If they are not speaking to the child does it matter what language they use? He says– a necklace containing a cross was removed by the carer and not returned.Surely Cllr Wood knows that it is a rule in TH schools that no jewellery is to be worn? The carer would have had to remove the necklace before the child went to school and it would be prudent to put it somewhere for safety rather than keep taking it on and off.Cllr Wood say – Child encouraged to learn Arabic, child told mother that she needs to ask her social worker if she can learn Arabic. that’s perfectly acceptable.If l had a foreigner staying with me l would probably try and teach them a couple of words of English.But my favourite complaint is the Carbonara.Cllr Wood says– Not allowed to eat pork (her birth mother had cooked her Carbonara with pork to take home)..Hasn’t anyone ever told him the basic health and safety rule of not heating up cooked pork? A child who you are caring for return with a dish of pork Carbonara that you don’t know where it was cooked or even when it was cooked.let alone how it was cooked and you are expected to reheat it and feed it to some poor child.Feeding the child a reheated Carbonara would be more reason to sack them as a carer than not allowing them to have it.Cllr Wood should get his facts straight if not for the Council itself but for the poor foster carers who appear to be doing a good job in the most difficult circumstances

John This is what the Times report said about language “In confidential local authority reports seen by The Times, a social services supervisor describes the child sobbing and begging not to be returned to the foster carer’s home because “they don’t speak English”.”

This is the Tuesday report in The Times

“In a written report of one meeting, the contact supervisor described the girl as “very emotional and tearful”.

“She said they don’t speak English at the home, she doesn’t understand the Arabic words where she is. [The girl] said she wants to go back home to her [mother].”

So it is the little girl reporting the language issue to an employee of the Council.

You dismiss that as if they are not speaking to the child what does it matter? Are you serious, imagine a five year old child going through trauma of separation from their birth parent and going to a household where English is only spoken if the child needs to be spoken to (I am using your words) how comforting! the role of foster parents is to care for a child who has gone through a traumatic process. Surely it is important that English be the main language at home if that is the only language the girl knows. It does not have to be the only language but the child was clearly suffering.

Who is the foreigner? the reports says nothing about the nationality of any of those involved except by implication of the grandmother. As far as I know everybody else might be British citizens. The role of foster parents is to look after children on a temporary basis, they should not be making decisions about what languages the child should be learning, that is a job for the school.

To quote The Times “Her reports also describe the child’s account of her necklace, which carried a Christian cross, having been removed, and not returned, by the first foster carer.” not returned, not temporarily removed for school.

The bacon comment was made just before this section of the report “the girl is said to have told her mother that “Christmas and Easter are stupid” and that “European women are stupid and alcoholic”” so I think the journalist believed that the issue over bacon was wider then food safety. PS I have eaten reheated pork and according to my quick google the internet is full of ways of reheating cooked pork.

We do not know the full facts yet, how much of this is mis-interpration or other issues we do not know. All I can say from the little I know not in the public domain is that even more complicated then you can imagine.

But if we are to be serious about protecting children (which Tower Hamlets failed to do according to OFSTED) then issues like these need to be reported and investigated.

Reporters all need sacking, it is racial provocation…… Or just stirring and fueling hatred….. Ppl are just trying to help each other, look at what happens in a crisis…. Texas Houston ppl pulling together keep that in mind and we are all just get on fine.

Well the key is the girl is out and safe (if indeed she wasn’t already) ,,im glad it was sorted either way .The adults involved well we shall see (or not).

The media mainstream no longer exsits as a news reporting thing so nothing suprises me, I think murdoch is related to goebbels the amount of propaganda they put out ,a comic rag full stop. However if a reporter did start at least an investigation into it (better safe than sorry) good for him…thought it wouldnt be needed with the amount of social service employees keeping watch (hmmm) but still someone did something which is good imo.
Things like fostering need looking into just so the kids get the best chance.Things like the news need a collage course so people can tell the difference from opinions.

I thought all court cases involving children were closed. How did you get the transcripts. If what you write is the truth then I am releaved for the child. The press has too much power and should act responsibly. They are responsible for the exaggerated financial highs and lows making things worse than they actually are.

Cllr Wood
.It appears you would take the word of a emotional 5 year old rather than that of your hard working foster carers.Firstly it is not uncommon for children taken into care to be upset when they are required to return to the carer after a contact visit.As to your assertion the child could not have been coached what to say on a contact visit if as you imply a social worker sits in on the visit that is outrageous and oppressive and not even done in top security prisons and should be stopped instantly.
You say the 5 year old child complained that the carers spoke Arabic but how did she know? Only 20% Muslims speak Arabic so how this uneducated child know that it wasn’t Pashto or Urdu or any of the many other languages spoken by the Muslim inhabitants of your borough?.
As to the carers not being allowed to talk privately to each other in their own language as you serious?If two adults want to discuss matters not relevant to the child privately then they are perfectly entitled to do so The carers are entitled to a life of their own besides that of being a carer and the fact that you seem to think that because the Council pays them a wage that the Council owns them is outrageous
.Is it only the Muslim carers in your borough who you think should not be allowed private conversations between themselves or all foster carers
If as you say the necklace was taken from the child and not returned why didn’t the mother simply ask for it back or are you now accusing the foster carers of theft?
The mother appeared at several hearings at which she had ample opportunity to bring the matter up.In fact the Case Management Order makes the pertinent point
“13. The mother has at no stage applied to the court for a change of foster carer” Why not? Is it because if she asks the court to change carers they would ask for such a thing as “evidence”
As to the reheating of pork Cabonara what you do to your own food is a matter for you but when it comes to a foster carer they owe a duty of care to child and if the did refuse to reheat the Carbonara they were acting perfectly responsibly, obviously much more responsible than you would have done in the circumstances.
Do you know how clean the mother’s kitchen was or the mother’s own hygiene standards?Do you know how long this pork dish had been kept outside of a fridge and at what temperatures? In the absence of any of that information the foster carer had no option but to refuse to reheat it as would as other responsible person caring for a child
.If it was so important that the child had this Carbonara why didn’t the mother feed it to the child whilst on one of the thrice weekly contact visits? If a mother knew how much a child loved Carbonara wouldn’t they have rather gave it to her themselves so they could watch her happy face as she eat it up? Or is there a rule at your contact centres baring children being given reheated food?
You are lucky that any Muslim is prepared to take on the role of a foster carer in your borough when people like you are prepared to stab them in the back on no evidence at all.

You are missing the crucial fact that the Family Court hearing took place AFTER the press reports. It’s easy for all you armchair ‘experts’ to be wise with hindsight, isn’t it? It’s sad that even with this information, Mr Pride STILL got some of his ‘facts’ wrong.

It seems that the girl’s biological family told lies (some possibly from the girl herself) to a Times reporter in an effort to get the girl out of foster care. I can’t really blame them for what seems to be an emotional and desperate attempt.

However, the Times reporter failed to check the facts before publishing, and then some tabloids repeated the story and ’embellished’ it. Sadly that’s what they always do and there isn’t a body with sufficient teeth to stop them. It’s quite right for blogs and social media to highlight the actions of the tabloids, but when they also get the ‘facts’ wrong it does more harm than good.

Lily – this is a 5 year old girl. As a reminder the mother cannot coach the child as she can only see the child in supervised contact centre with a social worker present. The journalist had access to internal Tower Hamlets Council documents written by Tower Hamlets staff and quoted from them for at least a part of the story. They would not have written a story just on what the mother said, too risky.

Why are folk so surprised when the Main Stream Media get it wrong, spin and twist things and generally lie? In Scotland, we have known this for years. We have learnt to believe very little of what the MMM tell us. Sometimes they do get the weather forcast right, and usually the date, but little else…..

Cllr Wood Have you actually been to a contact centre in your borough?Are you saying that your borough’s Social Services are so insensitive that a social worker sits at the same table as the parent and child to monitor the conversations? You earlier expressed the opinion that you didn’t think foster carers had the right to hold private personal conversation and you now seem to say that this should also apply to children in care and their parents

It seems that this whole sorry mess originated because a reporter was allowed to see Tower Hamlets Social Services documents about a family in crisis, which SURELY should have been private and confidential. Can anyone shed light on how this happened? Cllr Wood – you seem to know something about it…

It has then been made much worse by being splashed all over the tabloids and subject to ill-informed assumptions and supposed ‘facts’ on social media and blogs such as this.

Tom, I would urge caution here. It sounds as if you have ASSUMED that what’s been said by public bodies like Tower Hamlets Council is correct, and that the press reports are inaccurate. You may be right on this. But it seems your comments are motivated by a loathing of the media. Can you say here what personal knowledge you have of this case and how you obtained it? If you don’t have any personal knowledge then you are no more to be believed than the journalists who wrote these stories, who one assumed have at least spoken to some of those involved. Don’t misunderstand me. This may indeed be a case of woeful, disgraceful journalism — and I speak as someone who worked as a journalist on the Daily Mail, albeit many years ago. But you shouldn’t assume that these reports have no substance at all, just because you don’t like the media.

[I have linked again and again to the court documents released by the judge which show the truth of the case and shown how the newspapers have even photoshopped stock photos and tried to pass them off as genuine. Make your own mind up.] – TOM

Replying to John, it is standard practice always to have supervised access to those in care of state either under Childrens Act if under 16, or those held under the Mental Capacity Act if over.

This is usually done on the excuse of ‘best interests’ of adult or child see the recently highly published Blood on our hands case with the suicidal 16 year old here https://finolamoss.wordpress.com/

The big mystery here is how and more importantly why were these ‘facts’ published before the hearing ?

And, if we have problems with ascertaining the’ truth’, how can judges do so in care and court of protection hearings, where particularly in the later, no fact finding hearing is held and what experts and social services say accepted without question..

John In dealing with other cases I have a good understanding of how contact centres work and have read the contact reports of another case. The social worker stays in the same room but not necessarily that close, it depends on the conditions set. But their job is to supervise what happens and not allow inappropriate contact. I said it would be inappropriate to place a child in a home where the majority of the language spoken in the home was not one she could understand.

Lily to quote The Times “A social services supervisor for Tower Hamlets in east London described the child sobbing and begging not to be returned to the foster family because “she doesn’t understand the Arabic”. The girl is also understood to have said that she was regularly expected to eat meals on the floor.”

I do not know whether the mother lied or not but the reporters story was not based on the mothers story alone.

The reports the journalist saw are confidential and I suspect that will be investigated. But think of all of the stories the press have released based on documents they should not have seen. Can you imagine our society without a free press revealing stories that the powerful would rather suppress. A free society can only exist with a free press.

What was the authorities doing for the child before police intervention? Police didn’t simply turn up and discovered then that the 5 year old child’s saftey is compromised should she remain with her mother? Where were the authorities since now 5 year olds birth?

This simply confirms Ofsted’s damming assessment of Tower Hamlets that “there are widespread and serious failures in the services provided to children who need help and protections in Tower Hamlets. As a result, far too many children remain in situation of actual and potential harm for too long”.

How long did the authority know that the child remain in a unsafe environment?

The family reportedly are relieved? Why didn’t they come forward sooner and waited until now?

This is an absolute disgrace and appears to rank personal prejudice well above child welfare in UK. Surely this is a prime case for the new regulatary structure for newspapers. They need their backsides kicked if not their collars felt. Can anyone tell me how I can complain about this and can I encourage everybody else to complain too

Reblogged this on a boy's head and commented:
This should be recorded in as many places as possible. It is an appalling demonstration of story making – outside of easily checkable facts – to use certain stereotypes, careless of the anger, and distrust that must feed off the lies. I’m glad Tom Pride names and shames at the end – the ‘journalists’ deserve no less.

Reblogged this on Mantonite – A Worksop Liberal and commented:
The post is disturbing on so many levels, not least because of the disregard for the truth by journalists. No doubt the false version is now lodged on the minds of those who read these sad excuses for newspapers and will be dragged up in anti-Muslim propaganda in the future.

Cllr Wood As you now accept the term supervised visit does not mean that the Social Worker sits in on the visit merely that someone is present in the room whilst the visit takes place.It was therefore perfectly possible that the mother could have coached her daughter what to say.As l have already pointed out how would a 5 year old know the difference between Arabic,Pashto or Urdu?As far as the confidential document you will note that the court asked the mother if she had passed it to the Times so it was probably one of the many reports that one finds in the bundles when a care case is being decided.As to the necessity of a free press you are aware of course that the publishing of the newspaper report have nothing to do with the outcome of the IRH on 29th /08.It merely caused distress for carers and risked identifying the child .The decision to place the child in a temporary care arrangement with the grandmother was made by LBTH on 15/08 when they notified the court of their change in care plan for the child.As to the Times claim that the child was removed from the care of the fosters carers this was also untrue as the Interim care order granted on 27th/06 had expired

You wonder why they are so determined to turn the UK public into a nation of racists, and then you remember all the money arms sales bring to a few of the rich and powerful. That a little girl has been used in such a way probably comes nowhere close to showing the levels they have already stooped to.

These reporters should be sacked. They lied and that is against the law.
It’s terrible and sad that some ignorant people go to that level to get an innocent family into trouble because they are Muslims! We are a civilised society and will not accept this behaviour .

Rasha there are laws on fostering, the allegation is that they were not followed by Tower Hamlets Council in the placement of this child which does appear to be based on internal Tower Hamlets Council documents. This is the key section of the 2011 regulations.

(b) before making any decision affecting a child placed or to be placed with a foster parent due consideration is given to the child’s—
(i) wishes and feelings (having regard to the child’s age and understanding), and
(ii) religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background.

Children Act 1989 (c. 41)
Part III – SUPPORT FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES PROVIDED BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN ENGLAND

(4) Before making any decision with respect to a child whom they are looking after, or proposing to look after, a local authority shall, so far as is reasonably practicable, ascertain the wishes and feelings of—

a) the child;
b) his parents;
c) any person who is not a parent of his but who has parental responsibility for him; and
d) any other person whose wishes and feelings the authority consider to be relevant,
regarding the matter to be decided.

(5) In making any such decision a local authority shall give due consideration—
a) having regard to his age and understanding, to such wishes and feelings of the child as they have been able to ascertain;
b) to such wishes and feelings of any person mentioned in subsection (4)(b) to(d) as they have been able to ascertain; and
c) to the child’s religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background.

The Fostering Services (England) Regulations 2011

Part 4
11. The registered person in respect of an independent fostering agency must ensure that—
(a) the welfare of children placed or to be placed with foster parents is safeguarded and promoted at all times, and
(b) before making any decision affecting a child placed or to be placed with a foster parent due consideration is given to the child’s—
(i) wishes and feelings (having regard to the child’s age and understanding), and
(ii) religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background.

The following is also relevant;

United Nations – Convention on the Rights of the Child 1990

Article 20

3. Such care could include, inter alia, foster placement, kafalah of Islamic law, adoption or if necessary placement in suitable institutions for the care of children. When considering solutions, due regard shall be paid to the desirability of continuity in a child’s upbringing and to the child’s ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic background.

Article 21
States Parties that recognize and/or permit the system of adoption shall ensure that the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration

I honestly believe that anyone with any common sense would have realised most of the facts in this story, but I’m afraid that we the public must take some responsibility for the rise in this kind of report, it’s no longer about fact or truth but more about what justifies our beliefs or agendas , this attitude of , ” defending whatever is said that suits us ” we saw it with brexit we saw it even more with the recent election, we saw it with the ” nurses using food banks ” story and now this, and I’m not sure any media agency can take the high ground,

Cllr Wood Luckily for LBTH you have nothing to do with the legal aspects of the council as the Council did nothing wrong in the case of AB as the court has chosen to designated the poor child.
As the Case Management Order says;
2.The child was removed from the mother’s care and placed by social services with foster carers on an emergency basis in March 2017 as a result of the police exercising their powers of protection. There was no culturally matched foster placement available at the time…….
Unlike a LA the police have the power to remove a child without a court order Section 46 of the Children Act allows for a police officer to remove a child from a parent for a period of up to 72 hours..LBTH had 72 hours to find a placement and apply for a Emergency Protection Order so as the child was protected after the 72 hours expired LBTH did this but as the court record shows no culturally matched foster placement was available and LBTH had no option but to place the child with who ever was available.It was not an option available to LBTH not to place the child until a culturally suitable placement was available as the child’s safety was paramount concern.
As to the Children Act 1989 the relevant term is “so far as is reasonably practicable,” the part you quote goes on to say” In making any such decision a local authority shall give due consideration—” in other words it is not imperative if it is not “reasonably practicable” the LA does not have to do it.It should be noted that the Children and Families Act 2014 Adoption agencies no longer have to search for a perfect or even a partial ethnic match between potential adopters and children. This was designed to reduce delays in finding adopters for vulnerable children.It would be ridiculous to suggest that a LA would be forced to unreasonably search for an ethnic match of a foster carer when a child was in imminent danger

According to reports I’ve read, the girl was partly of Muslim background, so that the placement wasn’t as inappropriate as has been made out by the usual suspects. We have to doubt too on the claimed removal of a cross necklet from her on her placement. There’s a strong hint here of the supposed removal by order of similar necklets from medical staff, who, for sanitary reasons alone, shouldn’t be wearing them, like ties by consultants.

John and why were there no appropriate matches?, why were there no religiously or culturally appropriate matches given that 62% of the population in Tower Hamlets are not Muslim. 81% of foster parents live outside of Tower Hamlets so we are not restricted to foster parents just in Tower Hamlets by the way. The Council has to ensure a balance of different foster carers in order to be able to match the law, they seemed to have failed in that task in the same way that they failed OFSTED. You are also still ignoring the issue over whether the foster parents were appropriate carers in the first place. Some of the allegations about what the child was told are extremely concerning if true.

I do think adoptions can be across ethnic lines but there is time to prepare and ensure an appropriate match (The Times has an interesting article today about a Sikh couple in Berkshire trying to adopt by the way and getting nowhere).

But given the emergency nature of many fostering cases the Council should have tried harder to ensure the availability of more foster parents. In my three years as a Councillor I cannot remember seeing an advertising campaign to attract new carers, when I do a search on the Council website for the word foster in the News section, there is nothing.

John forgot to say that the Children and Families Act 2014 relaxation of the need to match on ethnicity for adoptions does not apply to foster carers as far as I can see and anyway is irrelevant to this story as nobody has raised any issues about ethnicity or even reported the ethnicity of anybody involved except for the child.

cllr Andrew Wood, you are one of the few people here that has genuine empathy for the young girl here, a realistic perspective. You are the onlyone that has quoted the child, most other participants here have completely dismissed her cry for help…shame on you all..

Cllr Wood .Are you suggesting that staff from LBTH gave perjured evidence to East London Family Court when they stated that there was no available foster parent of a cultural match?
As to the 2014 Act you clearly haven’t read it as it repealed the
requirement for adoption agencies to give due consideration to a child’s religious persuasion,racial origin and cultural and linguistic background when making a decision in relation to the adoption of a child You must accept that it would be ludicrous if a child can be permanently adopted by a person of a different cultural or ethnic background but a child in imminent danger couldn’t.
As to the removal of the necklace you are aware that this is the policy of all primary schools in Tower Hamlets.that jewellery be removed before children attend schools.Do you oppose this policy and if so why? What exactly would you do with a child who has suffered or was likely to suffer significant harm/ Leave them in danger ?

Alismat The police decided that the child was either suffering or was likely to suffer significant harm.This decision was one held by the court as well as LBTH and the independent Guardian.What would have done with this child ?Left her in danger until a suitable carer came along? If you have read the Case Management Order you would have read the following…10. The child’s Guardian has undertaken enquiries and visited the child in the current foster carer’s home and spoken to the child alone. The Guardian has no concerns as to the child’s welfare and she reports that the child is settled and well cared for by the foster carer .So an independent Guardian whose only concern was the welfare of the child found that the child was settled and well cared for. There was viable evidence that the child was in danger and there was viable evidence that the child was well cared for by the foster carers .What there is no viable evidence is any of the claims made about the alleged mistreatment of the child.

John why are you referring to a change in the adoption process?, we are talking about fostering which is a separate process. The 2014 Act only repealed the ethnicity element of adoptions and I said ethnicity is not mentioned in the newspaper reports.

And I am not saying they perjured themselves. I am asking why did they did not have enough foster parents in March 2017 and do not appear to have recently campaigned to recruit more. If only one foster parent was available then yes regardless of other issues the child had to be placed with a foster parent. The issue remains why were not other foster parents available that may have been a better fit.

The removal of the necklace is alleged to have been permanent not temporary on a daily basis while the child is in school.

I am working on a series of questions to Tower Hamlets to try and resolve the accuracy of these reports. But there is enough information to suggest that there are serious issues to be investigated and as a reminder I was elected to hold the administration to account and not to ignore credible and serious allegations by an award winning journalist.

You say –
the child herself is from Muslim heritage
not true – Mother declare her family of Christian Heritage. I take it to imply that she would self-identify as of Christian heritage.
You say
her Muslim grandmother has now been cleared by the courts to look after her
not true –
The ‘Muslim’ grandmother state they are non practicising Muslim
So at best there is some muslim heritage within the girl’s family

You say
her Muslim grandmother has now been cleared by the courts to look after her
this is the muslim grandmother who self-identifies as non-practicising.
Muslim isn’t racially assigned – it is down to assent: non-practicising casts into doubt the grandmother’s status as a Muslim.
Consider if you were baptised a Christian who then ceased to practice – should you be considered a Christian? No.

Not to say that the case is complex, not to say that the press created some level of hysteria but if you want to dismiss it you shouldn’t misreport it yourself.

Cllr Wood As l have stated you clearly have not read the Children and Families Act 2014 the Act did not just repeal the obligation to give due consideration to ethnicity it quote; Subsequently, provision to repeal the requirement for adoption agencies to give due consideration to a child’s religious persuasion,racial origin and cultural and linguistic background when making a decision in relation to the adoption of a child was included in the Children and Families Act 2014. end quote.
You also now seem to accept that the foster carer was the only one available so all the arguments in regards to suitability disappear as LBTH were legally obligated to place the child in a place of safety.As to your arguments that LBTH do not have enough foster carers that is not a matter for the court and is in fact a matter that you as a Council member should have dealt with.Have you ever raised the matter at any Council meeting?
I lastly suggest that you visit East London Family Court as it is in your ward and observe some of the cases .You will see that you are lucky enough to have one of the fairest and most thorough Family Courts in the country and that this child’s case has been handled with great skill.
file:///C:/Users/obnox/Downloads/SN06351%20(1).pdf

Cllr Wood
You said “I am asking why did they did not have enough foster parents in March 2017 and do not appear to have recently campaigned to recruit more.” whereas the OFSTED ” The fostering service is actively recruiting new carers, and it supports carers well.”..So it appears you have not even read the OFSTED report properly.

Why are people surprised about the press lies am not. Of course a muslim family was never going to be good enough for s white child. Had it been the other way round we would nevet have heard about it. Once agsin we are reminded of the racist society that we live in and the so ccall press who twist and lie for their own agenda.

Perhaps it should be noted that the times was praised by the judge.. Tower hamlets record of caring for chlidren is far from.perfect. the grandparents should have been considered first for care. Andrew Norfolk was the reporter who broke the story of asian heritage men abusing white vulnerable girls.

[The Times was not praised by the judge. That’s a lie. On the contrary, the judge criticised the Times for publishing a photograph of the carer and the girl. Read the court transcripts. The grandparents were always considered first by the social services, but the court had to vet them and the judge had to agree first before they could give the girl to them. The girl was taken into emergency care on the orders of the police. The girl’s grandparents, by the way, are Muslims, something not mentioned by the press. Read the court transcripts and please stop getting your information from the tabloids, including the Times and the Telegraph. Because they lie.] – TOM

A mother gets the attention of the police for drink and drugs abuse and the police bring in social services to take the child. These people are arguing about who decided the girl needs to go into care. That was simply the police, if they hadn’t she would still be with the mother.

So the article is correct, the newspapers reported it as the social service simply as a smear and the whole thing is a racist smear slanted to tickle bigots and idiots who read the Daily Mail.

Reblogged this on Dr Alf's Blog and commented:
Here’s an amazing story of the UK tabloid press highlighting their bias and distorting the truth. The bottom line is that their readers have been fed false news that’s close to proganda. Why didn’t the journalists review the evidence to corraborate their stories? Surely, it’s the same for Brexit, the tabloids have been responsible for fanning false news? With so much false news on Brexit, why aren’t the political classes standing up for truth and integrity and proposing a second referendum?

As a foster carer I find negativity towards foster carers upsetting. Although we need to be transparent and work towards excellence in giving the best care to vunerable children. I have cared for Muslim children and I’m white British but have respected their culture and religion whatever the child’s age. Nothing is said about this only anything remotely negative that sells newspapers is worthy of mention. When those who know me told me about this case I had my doubts of it being a true picture. Whatever a foster carers religion culture creed or colour they are professional and care for children of all backgrounds with care and respect.

If Tom’s blog is correct (and I see no reason to doubt the salient facts) the ONLY criticism I have ​is his suggestion that ​the journalists’ motivation for distorting the facts​ is​: “…to further the political ends of their proprietors.” There are no facts to support this statement. I suggest these are just lazy journalists​ ​who may have picked up the copy from an *agency​ ​and regurgitated without checking the facts. (*that’s probably why the copy is similar…Tom needs to find the News Agency that provided the source material to the national hacks!). Nevertheless​,​ I also condemn the journalists for their ​unprofessional behaviour in dealing with such a sensitive story​.​​Tabloids are used to stretching the truth to get a good story. However, I believe The Times​ editorial directors will not be impressed by such sloppy journalism! It’s clearly worse than much of the Social Media ‘fantasy’ that purports to be factual news.

As the recent multiple child sex abuse rings at the hands of mo-ham-edans prove,It is never safe to place a white child anywhere near a muslim since they have NO RESPECT in any regard for any body who doesn’t follow mo-ham-ed.Sadly it has taken so many children being abused to open peoples eyes to the true culture of islam so sit down you wine swilling flip flop wearing liberals,The tip of your whitewashed immigration policy has been scratched and isn’t working to cover the mudslime filth that now procreates like rats among our old ‘dark satanic mills’ in Englands green and pleasant land.

Whenever I read stereotypical tosh like “wine swilling, flip flop wearing liberals” I am affronted I “swill” wine wear sandals, and I am a 24 carat, bigot,who rants about “tree hugging” liberals on the tweetery, and also believes that we should only allow people called Smith, Baker, Butcher and Cobblers to live in this wonderfuel, tolerant country of ours…

Rob, do you get upset about white paedophiles or the abuse of young BME girls too, or do you only care when the perpetrator is Asian and the victim is white? All child abusers are scum no matter what colour / religion they are but people like you only care when ‘our’ children are being abused. But when the likes of Rolf Harris or Ian Watkins or Adam Johnson abuse young girls, you’re silent.

Btw I’m Jewish and we don’t eat pork either. An observant Jewish family wouldn’t have allowed spaghetti carbonara in their house.

Jimmy Saville, as white, Anglo Saxon and as English to his core as you could wish for. Rob would have loved the Spanish holiday hotel boor,whom I encountered, an affluent Northern “Chav”, whose most enlightened bar room discussion took place with an older TOWIE of similar ilk, NC loudly proclaiming that “Us Brits should be able to holiday at hotels abroad managed and staffed entirely by Brits, not these Spaniards”; wonder if NC or Rob ever eat out in Chinese, Indian, Greek or Italian restaurants, or patronise those “corner shops” staffed by pleasant, very hard working third generation “immigrants”…

Thank you, Tom Pride, for this. I worked for the press for 20 years – and was lucky enough to work for two of the more decent UK newspapers. I am so disturbed by the way the press operates – and disheartened when I speak to people who believe all that they read. In Flat Earth News, Nick Davies refers to the Mail as packaging up its readers’ prejudices and selling them back gift wrapped. We see them regularly doctoring photographs – this, and I am also remembering a stock image of a wind turbine. The original was a sunny day, the Mail had Photoshopped dark skies and ominous clouds.

I remain friends with many people in the industry, and I think I come across as a rabid tub-thumper on this issue. Even journalists working for decent papers can close ranks over this, citing free speech etc. Leveson is a good example – where there was a real opportunity for change but little appetite anywhere in the press.

What does inspire me is that there is an increased awareness of this at a grass roots level – your blog has come up three times in my FB feed from people who have nothing to do with the industry. These are people lobbying the likes of Sainsbury’s not to run promotions with the Mail. As usual, money talks – but perhaps in this case for the good.

Karen – the original reporter was Andrew Norfolk of The Times who was given access to be internal Tower Hamlets Council reports provided to him by a Council employee.It appears the quotes came directly from those reports and not the mother (tbc). The pictures shown in The Times were direct shots, cropped and pixellated to protect the identity of those concerned.

[It should be pointed out that the judge specifically criticised the Times’ photograph (judge’s comments from the court report):
“The court expresses its concern that photographs of the child and foster carer
have been published in the press. It is imperative that no information should be published which may, even by way of “jigsaw” information, lead to the identity of the child being disclosed directly or indirectly.” ] – TOM

Disgraceful! But manages to hit two tabloid targets at once, Muslims and Social Services. Apart from being wrong and misleading for readers it is sad for good Journalists everywhere that their profession is further dragged down by this sort of simplistic, half truth ( if that) of a story which begins with a biased agenda then distorts or omits the facts to support that bias.

This is based on the actual facts as known and reported publicly not a selective selection. I am a Councillor in Tower Hamlets. Part of the difficulty with this story is the paramount need to protect the child from further harm so it is possible we may never know exactly what happened.

But I am concerned that Tom’s article is part of an attempt to de-legitimise the press and to paint this story as purely Islamophobia. It is not, it is a serious issue and needs to be properly reported as the paramount aim of children’s services is to protect the child.

It appears as if Tom did not read the original reports published by Andrew Norfolk in The Times newspaper (they are behind a paywall) which renders his analysis incomplete. Other newspapers simply read The Times reports and copied them. The issue Tom should be raising is why if any discrepancies exist between the original report and the copies.

Andrew Norfolk, Chief Investigative Reporter of The Times is an award winning journalist who helped to uncover the Rotherham sex abuse scandal where for years local authorities, the Police and other bodies ignored what was happening in part it is believed on the grounds of political correctness. He was right to uncover that scandal and I believe based on what is known so far to publish this story as well. It is in the public interest.

The reports mention that he had access to internal Tower Hamlets Council reports provided to him by an employee of the Council. They appear to include contact centre reports written by an employee of the Council who was supervising meetings between the child and her birth mother in a secure contact centre. The supervisor would be able to hear the conversation as part of their role is to ensure that the mother for example cannot coach the child nor find information she is not entitled to like the location of the foster family.

Therefore much of the information published was originally written by employees of the Council and is therefore known to the Council.

I have only compared his ten alleged falsehoods to the original The Times reports, the BBC R4 Today programme on Saturday 2nd September and the court documents, all except the BBC programme were available when Tom wrote his piece. I start with the points Tom made, below each one is my response plus excerpts from other reports.

1) According to court documents, it was the police not the local authority (as stated by the tabloids) who decided the child should be put into foster care:

Irrelevant to the story about the choice of foster parents. The Times just says that the foster placement decisions were made by Tower Hamlets Council which is correct. They made no comment about who made the original decision that the child should be placed in foster care.

The foster placements were made, against the wishes of the girl’s family, by the scandal-ridden borough of Tower Hamlets.

2) According to court documents, the foster family criticised by the tabloids was a temporary placement.

The Times made no specific comments on the length of fostering except to say that it had started this year. Foster placements by their very nature are temporary (even if they may extend for years) which is why we have adoption as a permanent solution.

To protect the child, The Times has chosen not to identify her or the unusual circumstances that led to her being taken into care earlier this year.

3) According to court documents, the child herself is from Muslim heritage and her Muslim grandmother has now been cleared by the courts to look after her. This fact is only disputed by the girl’s mother but none of this was mentioned by the tabloids as it would obviously totally destroy their narrative:

Islam is a religion not a heritage.

The court document says
Documents including the assessment of the maternal grandparents state that they are of a Muslim background but are non practising. The child’s mother says they are of Christian heritage.

The child is described in the reports as white Christian English speaking five year old girl who wears a cross and has long blond hair (as per the photo from The Times). One set of grandparents may have a Muslim background but were not practising so technically are not Muslim. In our society it is not uncommon for mixed families to be very different from each other. A good example is Boris Johnson, white, British Christian but with a Turkish grandparent.

As a reminder this is what the regulations say about foster placements (the United Nations – Convention on the Rights of the Child 1990 has similar wording)

(b) before making any decision affecting a child placed or to be placed with a foster parent
due consideration is given to the child’s—
(i) wishes and feelings (having regard to the child’s age and understanding), and
(ii) religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background.

Her religious persuasion was Christian. The law says nothing about matching based on family history and only one set of grandparents are of Muslim background.

The foster parents did not appear to match based on religion, race, possibly home culture (eating on the floor) and possibly linguistics in the home environment. That is not to say that the foster parents were not good or loving foster parents but the law is clear on placements.

4) The temporary foster mother did not wear a veil as stated by the tabloids. She wears a hijab:

The veil in the photographs published by the Mail and other comics was photoshopped onto a stock picture of a Muslim family taking a walk in a park in Dubai:

The Daily Mail did say that the photo was posed by models, they later used the same picture as in The Times which was real.

The Times actually said this

Her first carer, with whom the girl lived for four months, is believed to have worn a niqab outside the family home. The carer at her present foster placement wears a burka, fully concealing her face, when she accompanies the child in public.

A burka and a niqab are different from a hijab, I do not know where Tom got the Hijab comment from.

But The Times have pictures of at least one foster carer so would have been able to visually confirm what the carer was wearing (the pictures published are from the back and pixelated)

5) According to court documents, the child’s mother has not at any time requested the foster parents be changed:

True but the court documents also say this

8. The mother raised some concerns about the appropriateness of the placement. On 27th June 2017, the court directed the Local Authority to produce a statement to address the cultural appropriateness of the foster care placement.

11. The mother has today confirmed further concerns in respect of the foster carers.

12. The mother applied for the child to be placed in the care of the maternal grandmother at the hearing on 27th June 2017.

So the mother was trying to replace the foster parents with the child’s grandmother, the best possible carer under the circumstances

6) Tower Hamlets council have confirmed that the temporary foster parents do speak English. According to court documents, the Family Court dealing with the case has also expressed no concerns about the foster parents’ level of English. The press simply lied about that:

This is what the The Times said

In confidential local authority reports seen by The Times, a social services supervisor describes the child sobbing and begging not to be returned to the foster carer’s home because “they don’t speak English”.

and

A social services supervisor for Tower Hamlets in east London described the child sobbing and begging not to be returned to the foster family because “she doesn’t understand the Arabic”. The girl is also understood to have said that she was regularly expected to eat meals on the floor.

I believe that what a child says in the presence of a social services supervisor should be listened to and investigated (the mother would have had no opportunity to coach the child). The question is not that the foster parents could not speak English the question is what was the routine language used at home.
The Court says nothing about the language or otherwise of the foster parents.

7) According to council foster care officials, the temporary foster parents did not ban Easter as stated by the tabloids. There is also no mention of this according to court documents by either the mother herself or the lawyers representing her. The press simply lied about that.

This is what The Times report said

More recently, the girl is said to have told her mother that “Christmas and Easter are stupid” and that “European women are stupid and alcoholic”.

I do not know where Tom got the comment that the parents had banned Easter

8) There is no evidence, apart from claims by the tabloid press, that the temporary foster parents have banned crucifixes and bacon from the home. There is also no mention of this according to court documents by either the mother herself or the lawyers representing her. The press simply lied.

This is what the The Times said

The reports state that the supervisor heard the girl, who at times was “very distressed”, claiming that the foster carer removed her necklace, which had a Christian cross, and also suggested that she should learn Arabic.

and

A council employee heard the child say that the first foster parent, to whose care she was due to have been returned this week, had taken away her necklace, which had a cross.

and

It is understood that the child told her mother that when she was given her favourite Italian food to take home, the foster carer would not allow her to eat it because the carbonara meal contained bacon.

9) According to court documents, it seems the child was put into temporary foster care by the police because of the mother’s alcohol and drugs problems. There was no mention of this fact by the tabloid press, presumably as it would put a question mark over the mother’s credibility and her criticism of the temporary foster parents.

Irrelevant to the question, was the child placed with the appropriate foster parent as required by the law or not?

As a reminder The Times said this

To protect the child, The Times has chosen not to identify her or the unusual circumstances that led to her being taken into care earlier this year.

10) The foster parents have been rated very highly by independent assessors, including the child’s own independent Children’s Guardian whose job is to advocate solely for the welfare of the child:

There is no mention of the word ‘rated’ or ‘highly’ in the Court report not sure where Tom got that. This is what the Court said

The child’s Guardian has undertaken enquiries and visited the child in the current foster carer’s home and spoken to the child alone. The Guardian has no concerns as to the child’s welfare and she reports that the child is settled and well cared for by the foster carer

It is not clear which foster family the Guardian visited as there were two families at different times. The Times makes clear that one family was more of a concern.

Tom also makes no mention of the relevant fact that in April 2017 OFSTED failed Tower Hamlets Children’s Services with these comments (the childs fostering started in March)

“There are widespread and serious failures in the services provided to children who need help and protection in Tower Hamlets. As a result, too many children remain in situations of actual or potential harm for too long. Insufficient scrutiny by the chief executive, the director of children’s services (DCS) and politicians has meant that they did not know about the extent of the failures to protect children until this inspection.”

I will be trying to confirm the accuracy of the original Times reports but we owe that little girl and other children not yet fostered the benefit of an investigation to ensure that all children in the future are fostered by the best possible foster carers who will minimise the inevitable trauma of fostering.

These so called journalist have no heart at all, all they are interested in is to divide and conquer. The world is already full of hate and these bastards love to fuel it up as much as they can. Also it shows how much the public is so gullible and quite ignorant that they would believe anything they see or hear.

I agree, they should be sacked for stirring up hatred. The papers concerned should also make front page headline apologies to all concerned for the misinformation they have so freely spread to the general public.

Cllr Wood are you seriously telling me that council staff at a contact centre sit in to over hear private conversations between a mother and her child?. They do not even do that to prisoners serving prison sentences.On what basis do you claim the the Council have the right to ignore Article 8 of the Human Rights Act in respect to this mother and child? The House of Lords have already decided that a prisoner retains all their human rights except those expressing removed by the court.The court may well have removed the child from the mothers immediate custody but that was all.
As a member of a Council that abuses peoples human rights you should be ashamed.

John, yes that is precisely what I am saying, it is called supervised contact. The rules on contact will have been set by the Judge who has already taken the decision to remove the child from the birth parent.

Here is a definition

‘Supervised contact aims to ensure safety from physical harm and emotional abuse and requires a high level of constant supervision from supervisors experienced and confident enough to intervene immediately and firmly if anything of concern arises. If safe contact is achieved supervision becomes therapeutic in the widest sense. The contact is managed so that the child is supported in resolving issues with the parent which he or she needs to understand; or to provide opportunities for a parent to apologise or in other ways make amends; or to effect a planned and humane ending to contact. In supervised contact, the supervisor plays a role in guiding parents to improve the quality of interactions and parenting; this may include ‘mediating’ to improve the quality of interactions between a child’s parents or between
parents and substitute carers’.

Cllr Wood You state(;
As a reminder this is what the regulations say about foster placements (the United Nations – Convention on the Rights of the Child 1990 has similar wording)
(b) before making any decision affecting a child placed or to be placed with a foster parent
due consideration is given to the child’s—
(i) wishes and feelings (having regard to the child’s age and understanding), and
(ii) religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background….When you read a law you must read any amendments if you had done so with the Children Act 1989 you would have found the following..
4)Subsection (2) does not require the local authority to make arrangements of the kind mentioned in that subsection if doing so—
(a)would not be consistent with C’s welfare; or
(b)would not be reasonably practicable.
(5)If the local authority are unable to make arrangements under subsection (2), they must place C in the placement which is, in their opinion, the most appropriate placement available…..In other words by law LBTH is only required to do what was ” reasonably practicable”.It also says if the LA cannot make arrangements they must place child in placement which in their opinion was most appropriate as the Muslim carer was the only carer available and the Council was legally obliged to place the child it is clear that by law LBTH was obligated to place the child there.
Incidentally you again said that the order did not identify what foster carer was visited by the Guardian but it does.It says it was the “current” carers which means that as the order was written on the 29th August it must have been the second set of carers

John the latest English regulations say this – and the newspaper reports suggest that it is possible Council failed all of these points – certainly that is the worst case interpretation

the welfare of the child was not safeguarded and promoted
the wishes of the child were not given due consideration
and that the foster parent(s) did not match any of the required backgrounds

The Fostering Services (England) Regulations 2011

Part 4
11. The registered person in respect of an independent fostering agency must ensure that—
(a) the welfare of children placed or to be placed with foster parents is safeguarded and promoted at all times, and
(b) before making any decision affecting a child placed or to be placed with a foster parent
due consideration is given to the child’s—
(i) wishes and feelings (having regard to the child’s age and understanding), and
(ii) religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background.

Cllr Wood No where in that piece you quoted does it mention sitting in on a family visits as that would be oppressive and a breach of the families rights under Article 8.Are you claiming that the Judge made a specific order denying the parent of any privacy on contact visits?

John Please read what I posted earlier as you keep repeating the same point

“Supervised contact aims to ensure safety from physical harm and emotional abuse and requires a high level of constant supervision from supervisors experienced and confident enough to intervene immediately and firmly if anything of concern arises.”

It is standard practise for contact centre visits to be supervised in cases like this and The Times says this

“In confidential local authority reports seen by The Times, a social services supervisor describes the child sobbing and begging not to be returned to the foster carer’s home because “they don’t speak English”.

“The reports state that the supervisor heard the girl, who at times was “very distressed”, claiming that the foster carer removed her necklace, which had a Christian cross, and also suggested that she should learn Arabic.”

“The social services employee heard the child whispering Arabic words to her mother that she was allegedly told must be said aloud to ensure that “when you die you go to heaven”.
Her reports also describe the child’s account of her necklace, which carried a Christian cross, having been removed, and not returned, by the first foster carer.”

There are other similar references to a supervisor hearing what the child said to her mother that were then recorded in internal Tower Hamlets documents

Cllr Wood My quotes can from the actual act passed by Parliament on the subject which is the Children Act 1989 (as amended)..I have no doubt if you look at the Regulations which is a Statutory Instrument and therefore secondary legislation you will find the SI will contain the same exceptions in regards to what is ” reasonably practicable”.

Th Childrens Act and Regulations basically say the same thing but the Regulations are quicker to read so I posted them instead, here is the Childrens Act section

Children Act 1989 (c. 41)
Part III – SUPPORT FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES PROVIDED BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN ENGLAND

(4) Before making any decision with respect to a child whom they are looking after, or proposing to look after, a local authority shall, so far as is reasonably practicable, ascertain the wishes and feelings of—

a) the child;
b) his parents;
c) any person who is not a parent of his but who has parental responsibility for him; and
d) any other person whose wishes and feelings the authority consider to be relevant,
regarding the matter to be decided.

(5) In making any such decision a local authority shall give due consideration—
a) having regard to his age and understanding, to such wishes and feelings of the child as they have been able to ascertain;
b) to such wishes and feelings of any person mentioned in subsection (4)(b) to(d) as they have been able to ascertain; and
c) to the child’s religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background.

Cllr Wood Yet again you are merely quoting the bit that suits your argument go further in the Children Act 1989 you will find the following;
4)Subsection (2) does not require the local authority to make arrangements of the kind mentioned in that subsection if doing so—
(a)would not be consistent with C’s welfare; or
(b)would not be reasonably practicable.
(5)If the local authority are unable to make arrangements under subsection (2), they must place C in the placement which is, in their opinion, the most appropriate placement available..in other words due consideration goes out the window if would not be reasonably practicable.such as if a culturally suitable carer was not available.

Cllr Although it might be standard in LBTH to give children in care close supervised visits it is not normal in other boroughs they use supported contact unless the court orders close supervision.The Times says “It is understood that the child told her mother that when she was given her favourite Italian food to take home, the foster carer would not allow her to eat it because the carbonara meal contained bacon.” The fact that this conversation was not noted by the supervisor would indicate that the mother invented the story because if it is impossible for the mother to coach the child what to say without the supervisor hearing it would be equally impossible for the child to have told the mother about the carbonara

The Transparency Project exposes the inadeqaucy of the journalsim in thius case:
“The media may have an important watchdog function, but even in their newly self-styled role as watchdogs of secret anti-christian family courts The Times cannot claim credit here for restoring this child to the bosom of her Christian (possibly muslim) family.”http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/the-most-secretive-court-in-all-of-christendom/

As a journalist and a foster carer, these initial stories in the were full of improbables. At the very least, it was a story where hard facts and details of what is generally required by a local authority and considered good practice, were omitted presumably to heighten outrage.
Here in Scotland, I believe it is the police (along with social workers) who must be present to apply for a court order to legally take a child away from a parent and into the protection of the local authority. Only in extreme cases is it not what is referred to as temporary, until a thorough background report can be submitted to a judge who looks at the bigger picture and decides the longer term and safest place for the child to live.

Initial temporary foster care is considered as an emergency placement, and isn’t about finding a match between carers and children. It can be a very brief stay, anything from a few days or weeks. If the child is to stay in care social workers will usually try to find a matching placement that will take into account the child’s needs and also respect any specific requests of the parents.

Parents can get legal advice and challenge decisions as the process goes on. In my experience as a foster carer, the local authority does everything it can to actively support the positive and nurturing placement of children, and supports frequent and regular contact with the parents and family members with a view to reuniting the group as soon as is realistically safe and feasible for the child.

The story was another lamentable example of journalists compromising their integrity and churning out sensational, inflammatory nonsense.